Nuclear Energy Debate
Nuclear Energy Debate by Trevor Cooper UKIP Thanet South
For those of you who are aware the UKIP policy division has agreed to accept Nuclear Power as Party Policy.
I personally will not support this policy and my reasons are as follows: -
1. Health and Safety
If we are to carry out a simple risk assessment, as all good business’ would, one ways the likely hood of an accident, in this case extremely unlikely, against the effects if an accident should it occur. If an accident did occur the worse case scenario is mass death and destruction and Nuclear fallout effects nationwide and effecting many generations.
2. Running Cost
It has been argued that the running cost are cheaper but this is only true when the closed down cost are removed from the equation the true cost are far greater than conventional fossil fuels, or am I wrong?
3. Corporate Greed
If we follow the path of building Nuclear Power Stations then the house owners and business too are Dependent on their provision. Making large corporate profits.
The alternatives are simple Solar panels in roofs wind turbine on roofs empowering people to be less dependent. The power providers do not wish this to happen because we win and they lose.
Let’s not bow to corporate greed lets give back some freedom for the people of the United Kingdom.
I would be very interested in hearing other views on the subject and I will be submitting views on other matter shortly.
Thanks
Trevor Cooper.
|
|
You should be ashamed at your disloyalty. Why don’t you crawl off to David Cameron with his windmill. Are you more blue Labour than UK Independence Party. I seriously question your loyalty. You are one of these anti-Farage nutters who are trying to sabatoge UKIP. Do the decent thing RESIGN.
Comment by Lisa Covey — March 15, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Thank You Lisa I am pleased to hear from such a loyal fan of Nigels. I too am a fan and I will make sure that I discuss Nuclear Energy when I see him in April.
One of the reasons I am in UKIP is that we accept each others differences. We also don’t automaticly follow party policies if we disagree with them, we leave that for the lemmings that blindly follow Blair and Cameron.
Thanks again Trevor Cooper Party Member!
Comment by Trevor Cooper — March 16, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
I agree with Nigel on this issue. Looking at your points above you have commented nuclear stations are extremely unlikely. You have argued FOR THEM with that.
Secondly solar panels are very expensive for a home and the average person does not have money to install it. Have you got a 20m high wind turbine in your road? would you like one in your nearby field? To power the whole of the UK we would have to become a windmill island!! and would become a laughing stock.
Thirdly, current nuclear stations have become dilapidated because current government has not bothered to keep them updated or build new ones (no surprise there though is there)
Waste levels are much lower too. Funny how scientists havent been researching ways to break down minimal waste levels from nuclear. They generate much less waste than current fossil powered stations do.
Do you have solar panels on your roof? or a windmill on your garden?
I doubt it.
I think our greater freedom is ignoring the current governments stupid ideas….not having GREEN rammed down our throats with windmills bigger than buildings and highly expensive solar panels on our houses.
Comment by supersam82 — April 7, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
amendment to 1st line above ‘accidents are extremely unlikely’
Comment by supersam82 — April 7, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
It is possible that people centre their minds on the devastating effect of a reactor bursting at Chernobyl. Prior to
that event the Americans had one and Britain had one problem of lesser proportions.
Since then technology has improved and nuclear power stations can be regarded as very safe. The French have proved this attitude by having 17 nuclear sites with no problems at all. They even transfer electricity which was generated at nuclear stations to our shores.
Dungeness ‘B’ power station is a good example of a well run station. After some 40 years of producing electricity it will be de-commissioned within 5 years, which gives one a good idea on the ultimate safety of such a system.
Peter Condie - UKIP member
Comment by Bob — April 22, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Thanks everyone who’ve commented.
An interesting fact I have heard recently is that the price of uranium ore is going up considerably and making the cost of the raw material very expensive. Also it is other countries buying the mining rights in Australia and not the Britsh which suggest that we wont be able to afford to go down the nuclear road soon. Can anyone direct me to clear facts on this?
Comment by Trevor Cooper — April 23, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
In 2003 uranium was trading at around $7/lb, it is now trading at $113/lb. If you were to examine a chart of uranium’s progress then you would see that it has been making steady progress without a major pull back. Some researchers are predicting $200/lb in the near future.
However when we look at the cost of producing electricity from a nuclear power station the uranium component only accounts for 2.5%. If we look at the cost of electricity produced by a gas-powered station the cost is around 40%. From this we could conclude that uranium can go up a lot more without really affecting the cost of electricity.
The danger as I see it is that many other countries (United States, China, India, France et al) have been buying up the land which contains uranium thus securing their supply for the future. If Britain does not move and do the same then the opportunity may be lost completely.
We are now buying electricity from nuclear powered France to supplement our needs as is Germany and Italy.
In terms of power supply do we want to be independent or not?
Bob K
UKIP Member
Comment by Bob — April 24, 2007 @ 8:58 am